Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

Originally Posted by Random Thoughts

I am probably in minority here, I don't legitimately think that NBA owners can force him to sell his team because there is no morals clause. From my reading, Chapter 13 has wording to the effect that an owner has to "fail to fulfill" a "contractual obligation". Without a morals clause, it is hard go boot an owner in that manner. Nonetheless, it wouldnt surprise me if the NBA decides to boot him (especially if they make the votes public) and he would certainly contest the decision in a federal court unless the Congress denies the a federal court the jurisdiction to hear the case (unlikely to happen, anyway).

All in honesty, it is rather sad that we routinely ask a governing body to make a decision for us like we are powerless sitting ducks; when we should exercise our economic power by not watching the games, purchasing tickets, et cetera.

I certainly have a lot of thoughts on this case... I am not going to share here since it is more political/anthropological unless someone provokes a discussion.

From my understanding the NBA Owner's Constitution Chapter 13 states "The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following: (a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association."

A provision that would fall under that rule is in Chapter 35A, which states "Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect
prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team"

Sterling's comments definitely have had a detrimental impact to his team and the league. This is a contract and Constitution he willing entered into when he became an owner. Legally speaking he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

I agree that it is a little extreme, especially given the fact that he didnt even drop a racial slur. But the NBA didnt really have a choice. 95% of the players are black and you had guys threatening to not show up. The NBA could have lost a lot of money if guys staged a protest. It sucks for him.

I do know that this chick is now the most expensive piece of ass in the history of mankind. And she looks like a man. My question for Sterling is, was it worth it?

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

On top of that, it was a private conversation in a private domain. Furthermore, the evidence that NBA has to justify its decision comes from a fruit fro the poisonous tree.

There could be many variables to why he said something like that but it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense....I find it more than a little strange that a man who employs mostly AA and most of the games followers are AA would say something like that and mean it for all AA's....
I always say, a one sided story is real convincing, until you hear the other side.

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

On top of that, it was a private conversation in a private domain. Furthermore, the evidence that NBA has to justify its decision comes from a fruit fro the poisonous tree.

A private conversation that was made public. I am open to criticism about the way it was revealed...but once it made it's way into the public arena, all bets were off.

For example, if your employer said privately that he hated you for no logical reason, and that he didn't want you attending company sponsor events, and said derogatory statements about your heritage. Now those comments were made public. Would you be opposed to your employer being ousted?

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

Originally Posted by Old Dog

There could be many variables to why he said something like that but it certainly doesn't make a lot of sense....I find it more than a little strange that a man who employs mostly AA and most of the games followers are AA would say something like that and mean it for all AA's....
I always say, a one sided story is real convincing, until you hear the other side.

His long history of racist comments and actions, dating back to the 80's, doesn't lend credibility to his side of the story, if he even has...to my knowledge he hasn't rebuked the recording. Also, racist aren't the most logically thinking individuals anyway.

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

Originally Posted by Dade

From my understanding the NBA Owner's Constitution Chapter 13 states "The Membership of a Member or the interest of any Owner may be terminated by a vote of three fourths (3/4) of the Board of Governors if the Member or Owner shall do or suffer any of the following: (a) Willfully violate any of the provisions of the Constitution and By-Laws, resolutions, or agreements of the Association."

A provision that would fall under that rule is in Chapter 35A, which states "Any person who gives, makes, issues, authorizes or endorses any statement having, or designed to have, an effect
prejudicial or detrimental to the best interests of basketball or of the Association or of a Member or its Team"

Sterling's comments definitely have had a detrimental impact to his team and the league. This is a contract and Constitution he willing entered into when he became an owner. Legally speaking he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Do you have a copy of the entire Constitution? If so, please share.

I can see this being argue in a federal court being whether a private conversation qualifies in this instance. That, obviously, is one variable.

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

Originally Posted by Dade

His long history of racist comments and actions, dating back to the 80's, doesn't lend credibility to his side of the story, if he even has...to my knowledge he hasn't rebuked the recording. Also, racist aren't the most logically thinking individuals anyway.

Maybe, but we still haven't heard his side of the story and as someone pointed out, he didn't even use a racial slur....And if he had so many other violations , why didn't they punish him then instead of unloading on him now over something so questionable ?
I'm not an NBA fan so I wouldn't know about his past, only the news of the situation at hand.
And this looks very unfair and questionable to me as an unbiased observer.

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

Originally Posted by Old Dog

I don't know what he could have possibly said that would warrant such a drastic measure of injustice.
I've heard Barkley say so many racist things it's pathetic, yet he is still a very notable spokesman and recognized by the NBA....We're talking about a man's livelihood and just because we don't like the way he voices his opinions on race, politics or religion, is certainly not reason enough to take what he has worked for all his life....That's ridiculous, fine him ,ok but be reasonable. Vick ran a dog killing ring for sport and the NFL reinstated him because they thought taking his livelihood away permanently was too extreme.....This guy just said something people don't like and is frowned on in today's society. So did Dog the bounty hunter but he was reinstated also.

Donald Sterling is worth $2 billion...taking away his livelihood? Lmao. He's bought that team for $12 million and is liable to get $800+ million via any sale.

The guy has a long a storied history of being a racist and a bigot...this wasn't in any way an isolated case.

I don't buy the second chance BS because of his documented history...he has had many, many chances, and if I hear one more idiot on the radio or on twitter bring up the first amendment I'm going to lose it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

On top of that, it was a private conversation in a private domain. Furthermore, the evidence that NBA has to justify its decision comes from a fruit fro the poisonous tree.

This is a business decision, not a legal one.

Concepts such as privacy, "fruit from a poison tree", etc do not apply here.

The NBA has by laws in place, which Sterling agreed upon prior to his membership in the league, and he can be removed.

He also agreed that all disputes will be arbitrated so there's no avenue via the courts in which he can seek remedy.

In short, he's fucked.

WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.

The comments were made in private but are now public. There is no legal privilege about comments made between a man and his mistress (i.e. spousal privilege). Also he is not being prosecuted by the government for his comments. This is a private organization exercising its by-laws on a member.

What actually do you think he should take the NBA to court over, being (possible, more than likely) forced to sell his team, lifetime ban from operating team, or the 2.5 mil fine? All of these punishments Sterling agreed to when he became an owner and signed the Constitution.

Re: Would the NFL Ban an Owner for Life?

Originally Posted by Old Dog

Maybe, but we still haven't heard his side of the story and as someone pointed out, he didn't even use a racial slur....And if he had so many other violations , why didn't they punish him then instead of unloading on him now over something so questionable ?
I'm not an NBA fan so I wouldn't know about his past, only the news of the situation at hand.
And this looks very unfair and questionable to me as an unbiased observer.

No offense, but a taking a second to simply google "Donald Sterling" would be beneficial before you start opining on him and this stipulation.

Seriously...take a second and just read one or two of the countless results that show up.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Although Walsh's system of offense can compensate for lack of talent; however, defense is a different story. According to Walsh, talent on defense was essential and could not be compensated for. What did Walsh do in 1981? He acquired physical and talented players on defense.